What the Dickens!
By Teri Ong
While I was in London, President Obama was in Oslo, Norway accepting his Nobel Peace Prize. I was gratified to see that some European protestors were uncharacteristically taking him on for his lack of substance. Sadly, there were no protests when we caved in on the man-made global warming issue, clearing the way for President Obama to enact environmental policies by executive order, thus by-passing congress and any last vestige of the will of the people.
Our greatest problems are not tied to excessive greenhouse gases, use of non-renewable energy, or even global swine flu pandemics. Our greatest problems are tied to human depravity. The great Victorian-era English authors such as Charles Dickens, George MacDonald, and Elizabeth Gaskell understood the connection between sin and social degradation, and were not afraid to take it on in their novels. Victorian sensibilities had been aroused in no small part by the efforts of William Wilberforce and his compatriots who, once slavery had been abolished, wanted to use their influence and resources to “improve the morals of England.”
I was reminded of Dickens’ portrayals of 19th century London when, on my way to visit an antiquarian bookseller, I stepped on a very loose paving stone which gave way and covered my shoes and stockings with mud. Scenes of fine carriages full of upper class people splashing mud and muck on unfortunate street urchins and anyone else who happened to be standing in the wrong place lurched into my mind. In general, the streets of London are much cleaner nowadays, as is the air quality, but moral degradation is as bad as ever.
In Dickens’ day the industrial revolution had created a class of unskilled workers who were willing to work for minimal wages. After all, some money for some kind of work was better than no job and no money at all. Prior to mechanization, these same workers would have been employed in agriculture or in semi-skilled cottage manufacturing jobs. If there was no work during times of economic downturn, whole families might become unemployed, leading, of course, to rampant homelessness, malnutrition, and disease.
The British government enacted various laws to “improve” the lot of the poor. These attempts included the “Poor Law” which created residential (and pestilential!) facilities known as poor houses, where workers had worse conditions and lower pay than if they had had private sector subsistence level work. Lack of sanitation, poor nutrition, over-crowding and 16 – 18 hour work days led to much disease and early death. However, the government that “provided” for you in life would also provide for you in death. If you died in a poor house, the Anatomy Law donated your body to science for dissection so your family would not have to bear the cost of burying you. (I wonder if something similar will be included in President Obama’s vision of “end-of-life” planning for American senior citizens.)
Lisa Toland, in “The Darker Side of A Christmas Carol,” stated, “Many of London’s poor chose the streets to beg and prostitute instead of the government’s supposed discerning benevolence.” (Christianity Today, Dec. 09, p. 44-48) Historically, there are many examples of bureaucratized altruism being subsumed by the law of unintended consequences.
Some of the Victorians got the answer right. Concerned Christians carried out incredible charity work with no help from “government programmes.” Individuals including George Muller, Charles Spurgeon, Lord Shaftsbury, Hannah More, and the Countess of Huntingdon, and organizations such as the Salvation Army and the Young Men’s Christian Association provided orphanages, soup kitchens, rescue missions, Sunday schools for spiritual training, and day schools for teaching working children how to read and write. Christians were at the forefront campaigning for child labor laws and pressing for safe working conditions. They understood that loving their Redeemer, Christ Jesus, meant loving and caring for “the least of these” in society. They set an example of compassionate use of resources, and urged others to do the same.
Dickens, however, and other moralists got the answer wrong. They believed that people in society needed to imitate “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild,” without necessarily acknowledging Him as Lord God and savior of fallen mankind. Imitating the best man who ever lived sounds good on paper, but humankind has no capacity to be like Jesus apart from His saving power and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
In our own day, such social moralism has produced people who are proud that they drink only “fair trade” coffees and teas, wear shoes made of recycled shopping bags, and buy carbon credits when they fly somewhere. They think it a great cosmic favor that they are vegans and don’t mind paying taxes to put obese hedgehogs on diets (see Notes from London pt 3).
Frequently, “social justice” is a matter of class warfare. The spirit of Robin Hood– rob from the rich to give to the poor– is especially endorsed by the “poor” who hope that some of the booty will come their way. It is also true that in a democracy, the “rich” will never be able to out-vote the “poor” when it comes to deciding how much to take from people with means to give to those with needs. For many, “social justice” means getting their fair share, or a little more! But is the collecting and dispensing of largess the proper role of government?
I have frequently heard the old saw, “You can’t legislate morality,” bandied about, usually when some fervent crusader actually wants to legislate against immorality. But I think the real problem is, “You can’t legislate niceness.” When we were in London last spring, placards in the London Underground trains were advertising a “take a granny to lunch” campaign. It worked something like our car pool hotlines; you could call a central phone number and be paired up with a senior citizen who needed a little socialization. I admit that the program, at least in intention, was more admirable than our “It’s Just Lunch” dating service for disaffected singles. But I wonder how many people’s lives were actually improved significantly by yet another government program.
Our own government is currently in the process of robbing from the rich to give to the poor in a host of ways – ever increasing budgets for “education,” drug benefits for senior citizens, universal healthcare, continuous unemployment benefits, mandatory paid parental leave, etc., etc. And the move from “benefit” to “right” is as simple as cashing the first government issued check or swiping the first government issued cash card. (Maybe there is deeper significance in the term “swipe.” )
Jesus never had a top-down approach in mind in his advocacy for taking care of the poor. Biblical compassion is individual-to-individual, carried out cheerfully, the working out of Christ’s instruction to love our neighbors as ourselves. Ironically, the most compassion is often demonstrated through the sacrifice of those of the most slender means, as in the case of the widow who gave both of the pennies she possessed.
Biblically, the role of government is to punish evil doers and reward those who do right. (Romans 13:1-7) The best way on the positive side for the government to help the poor is for the powers that be to encourage and recognize those individuals and private agencies (including churches) who help the poor in practical ways. The main way this has been done historically is through tax relief proportional to a person’s charitable giving. It used to be that education, health care and the support of widows and orphans were under the purview of the extended family first. Should some fall through the cracks, the church was to take up the cause of the needy. But since the government got into the business of “charity,” the extra tax burden on families has put a damper on giving “out of the goodness of one’s heart.” And even if we don’t feel the strain on resources, we likewise don’t feel the burden, since the government will take care of things in our stead.
The best governmental way to help the poor on the negative side would be for the government to be especially hard on those evil doers who prey on the poor; for example, usurious credit card companies (no one can get out from under 31% interest!), rental companies that charge two to three times the fair market value for rented goods, check cashing companies that charge usurious fees, dishonest mortgage companies that get kick-backs for putting people in homes they are bound to lose, banks that charge exorbitant flat fees for bounced checks (even if the check amount is minimal). I’m sure you can all think of other predatory practices.
It is easy to become jaded in today’s self-centered society and think that Christian charity is dead, but one needs only to look at the front line relief workers in Haiti since the devastating 7.0 earthquake leveled the island this week. Hundreds and thousands of Christian missionaries, healthcare workers, teachers, etc., were already in the poorest country in the western hemisphere doing what they could for the poorest of the poor in the name of Jesus. And thousands more have risked their own lives to go help with rescue and relief work this very week. Many millions of dollars have been raised in a matter of less than a week, much of it through Christians giving sacrificially to Christian agencies, showing the level of care and concern for helpless and hurting people that is still possible.
The holding of all things in common so that the needs of all in the body of Christ could be met, as recorded in the book of Acts, was voluntary and sprang from hearts of love devoted to Christ and to loving neighbors as oneself. There is no such thing as “legislated love” or “coerced love.” There is, however, the possibility of the hand of God weighing heavily upon us if we fail to do what is right. And historically, sometimes the tool in His hand has been “human government.” But, no matter what comes down our pike in terms of various forms of “Obama-care,” nothing will ever supplant our responsibility to provide Christian care for those God puts in the path of our life. He has foreordained our good works (Ephesians 2:10), and most of them have human faces!
